1. DIAPOSITIVA 1

2. DIAPOSITIVA 2

3. DIAPOSITIVA 3

4. Sharp mismatch between teachers’ perceptions, opinions,
and beliefs and their performances.

 Tension
between their interest in improving language and
communication skills and their refusal to become linguistic
role models.
DIAPOSITIVA 4

5. ◘ Population B1-C1, of which 13 individuals have earned
diplomas (TOEFL, British Council, EOI, Cambridge examinations,
etc.).
◘ Self-reported linguistic abilities on a Likert scale
(1-5, being 5 the highest level of command).
◘ Higher competence in receptive skills and
lower in
productive ones.
LINGUISTIC SKILL
MEAN SCORE
Reading comprehension
4.2
Oral comprehension
3.8
Written expression
3.7
Oral expression
3.1
DIAPOSITIVA 5

6. Disparity of skills to the detriment of oral communication.
Insecurity under ‘NATIVE SPEAKER FALLACY’
●
(Klaasen & Räsänen 2006)
Bias of students’ judgment of teacher’s pedagogical
competence (Maum 2002)
Enough class participation = 72.2%
Unnecessary increase of participation = 44.4%
●
Reasons:
_ Senior undergraduates’ disinterest
_ Junior undergraduates’ lack of background
DIAPOSITIVA 6

7. Figure 1. Usual class dynamics of UPM content teachers (self-reported)
DIAPOSITIVA 7

8. Paradox:
 Habitual dynamics in 16 cases =
Teacher-centred lecture
 Little groupwork
Vague ‘autonomous learning’ in
between
DIAPOSITIVA 8

9. Figure 2. Breakdown of ‘autonomous learning’ as usual class dynamics at UPM
(self-reported)
DIAPOSITIVA 9

10. Gap:
 Guided visits, lab sessions and
demos require leading roles from
instructors.
 Not all multimedia programs provide
users with the same interactivity and
leeway to choose paths and solve
problems.
DIAPOSITIVA 10

11. 11%
6%
22%
61%
Figure 3. Habitual teacher control in content lectures at UPM
(self-reported)
DIAPOSITIVA 11

12. Fact:
 6% of teachers rule their classes
completely
 60-80% of classes teacher-ruled in
varying degrees over the egalitarian ratio
50-50%
 Egalitarian ratios slightly over 20%
Teacher rule increases
DIAPOSITIVA 12

13. Figure 4. Habitual teaching practices of UPM content instructors
(self-reported)
DIAPOSITIVA 13

14. Deficits:
 Mid-low incidence of summaries and
emphasis or repetition of major points
 Low hands-on class starts
 Minimal class supervision by
colleagues
DIAPOSITIVA 14

15. Figure 5. EMI difficulties as predicted by UPM teachers
DIAPOSITIVA 15

16. Deficits:
 Primary concerns:
BICS
Metadiscourse
Pronunciation
CALP
 Secondary concerns:
Aural comprehension (teachers’)
Writing repertoires for virtual interactions
 Disciplinary lexis negligible (1novice teacher)
DIAPOSITIVA 16

17. Deficits:
 Lack of awareness of (unmentioned):
Collaboration with colleagues
Class dynamics / methodology
Materials
Evaluation (in a FL!)
 No explicit connections between
methodology and
Class pace slowdown
Students’ low proficiency in the LF and mixed
DIAPOSITIVA 17

18. Deficit of multicultural
adjustments:
Slower speech rate
Marking of coherence & cohesion
Mitigation of intercultural distance
Lack of awareness of (unmentioned):
Questions
Elicitations
Direct appeals
Figurative language
DIAPOSITIVA 18

19. Figure 6. Use of learning boosters
DIAPOSITIVA 19

20. Deficits & Gaps:
 No web-based teaching despite the
predominance of visual styles (9/10
informants)
 No storytellers nor real verbalizers
 Small impact of operational input
(demos)
DIAPOSITIVA 20

21. INERTIA
Low-risk genre choice = Safe genre
Teacher-centred lecture + PowerPoint presentation
IMPLICATIONS
Mere update of chalk-and-talk with slideshows
> Expositive than interactive
No negotiation of expert roles
Little BICS
DIAPOSITIVA 21

22. Figure 7. Lectures with embedded genres
DIAPOSITIVA 22

23. Deficits & Gaps:
 No discussions, case studies, stories
 Conversations only in introductions + final
round of questions + spontaneous interruptions
to ask or comment
 Teacher’s solo problem-solving disguised as
‘joint venture’ with inclusive ‘we ’
DIAPOSITIVA 23

24. Figure 8. Recourse to key metadiscourse and CALP
DIAPOSITIVA 24

25. Deficits:
 Limited, poor repertoire
 Very poor stage-labelling + classification &
composition + problem solving (tandem problem/solution)
 Wider endophoric (even through laser pointer)
+ exemplification + enumeration + relevance
repertoires (even through parallelism &
emphasis)
 Barrier: Metadiscursive idiolects!
(e.g. ‘then’ as sequencer + inferential + ‘for exam
ple’ as discourse filler!
DIAPOSITIVA 25

26. Deficits:
 Limited, poor repertoire
 Very poor stage-labelling + classification &
composition + problem solving (tandem problem/solution)
 Wider endophoric (even through laser pointer)
+ exemplification + enumeration + relevance
repertoires (even through parallelism &
emphasis)
 Barrier: Metadiscursive idiolects!
(e.g. ‘then’ as sequencer + inferential + ‘for exam
ple’ as discourse filler!
DIAPOSITIVA 26

27. Analysis of UPM teachers’
performances
Structurally complete + ‘move-aware’
Introductions
 Session outline with points to be touched
In specific outline slide (8)
Reading or paraphrasing them while showing (6)
Jotting down points on black/whiteboard (1)
Just mentioning points (1)
 No brainstorming, elicitation, citations, quotes
 80% deductive (2 inductive with comic strips)
 Most 1st-person (I am going to talk about…/ We present…) (8)
 Blend impersonal + ‘you’ (2)
(‘The main objective of this class is that you understand…’)
DIAPOSITIVA 27

28. Content deliveries
 Blended: Chronological + cause-effect +
descriptive + occasional problem-solving
Recapitulations
 Both progressive + as closure (6 cases)
‘We have’ as existential structure
Summaries with ‘We have seen…’
Closures
 Some formulaic closures abrupt
‘And that’s all !’
‘There is no time for more’
DIAPOSITIVA 28

29. Analysis of UPM teachers’ performances
Scarce engagement metadiscourse
Questions
Audience pronouns
 All types:
 ‘You’ = endophorics, hypotheses,
_ Rhetorical (4)
procedures
_ Referential (6)
 ‘We’ = summaries, hypotheses, common
_ Comprehension checks (4)
perceptions and conditions, true joint
tasks
Asides
 Only 2 lectures to pursue complicity / rapport through humour
rather than clarification
Directives
 Covert in endophorics leading to visuals
 Only 4 overt (3 cognitive + 1 physical for realia)
Shared knowledge markers
 Both subtle (e.g. projected on comic strips) or explicit (e.g. ‘Probably you have heard’)
DIAPOSITIVA 29

30. DIAPOSITIVA 30